[Roll] [6tisch] I-D Action: draft-richardson-6tisch-roll-enrollment-priority-01.txt

[Michael Richardson]

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-richardson-6tisch-roll-enrollment-priority-01

There is little change.
I resubmitted simply because it expired.

It is still intended to be considered for WG adoption in ROLL.

There may be other methods to calculate the proxy priority provided for in
draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon.
(and certainly in non-RPL networks there would be need to be another mechanism)

The intention again, in this draft, is just to provide a DIO-level mesh-wide
announcement of management intention for a minimum.

In a multi-LLN/multi-PANID situation where there are multiple acceptable
DODAGs that a new pledge could join (under the same management), it would be
possible to shift preference among the different PANIDs using this mechanism.

AFAIK, the WG has not yet started a WG adoption call.
(Alternatively, 6tisch could instead adopt this, consulting on with ROLL for
IETF Review, as the allocation rules for Control Message Options specify in
6550 section 20.4)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+***@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

[Michael Richardson]

<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>

Georgios Z. Papadopoulos <***@imt-atlantique.fr> asked
about a name conflict between my two documents.

Namely, draft-richardson-6tisch-roll-enrollment-priority-01 it is defined as
“min. priority"

while in draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-00 as “proxy priority”.

To put this question in better context, and to assure myself that this wasn't
an issue due to uneven document editing/revision:

draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-00 says:

| TBD-XXX |R| proxy prio. | rank priority |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
| pan priority | |

and is dated July 17, 2018.

draft-richardson-6tisch-roll-enrollment-priority-01 says:

0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD01|Opt Length = 1|R| min. priority |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

min.priority a 7 bit field which provides a base value for the
Enhanced Beacon Join priority. A value of 0x7f (127) disables the
Join Proxy function entirely.

and is dated August 6, 2018.

The intent is that min. priority value would provide a floor value for
the proxy prio. above. The local node would add to it based upon local
conditions. Since 0x7f is the infinite value, if the DODAG root wants
to turn off join by sending out 0x7f.

We should change the name from min. priority to something like:
Proxy Join Priority Base Value == PJPBV ??
(Makes me think about Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches)

Perhaps you can suggest better terms, but I don't think that the terms
should be identical, because the value is not passed straight on.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+***@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-